The perils of a colonial heritage : Comments

I think the fact is that we are a Republic in all but name. Surely peerages; elitism and class-based social mobility would be viewed as anachronisms to most modern Australians who would also believe that we elect an Australian head of state in the Prime Minister (whose role and character are becoming increasingly presidential)?

I think it's time we "came out" and became confident as what we really are; Republicans. Our continuing membership of the Commonwealth should be enough to appease those remaining adamant monarchists.

Posted by Farnsy, Monday, 6 August 2012 8:25:37 AM

There is no good reason why we can't retain ties to England and be a totally independent nation as well.

We as individuals grow up and move away from our parents. But most of us retain close relations with them after their influence on our lives has become minimal. So it should be with our nation. Let’s retain the ties and traditions, at least to some extent.

Now, if there was a very good reason for becoming a republic, such as us getting the right sort of comprehensive political reform agenda implemented at the same time, or the new governmental system making it easier to do this, then yes, maybe a republic would be good.

But, there really is no reason why we can’t have this political reform while maintaining ties to the British monarchy.

What is important is political reform, not republicanism or monarchy.

I agree with Everald Compton that we should abolish states and move to regional government, with no more Queen’s representatives in the form of state governors. But this can happen while the monarch is still our ultimate head of state.

As for the title of this article: ‘The perils of colonial heritage’; we will always have this heritage even if we move to completely separate ourselves from all ties with Britain.

What are the perils of this heritage or of remaining linked to Britain while expanding links with Asia? There aren’t any that I can see.

Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 6 August 2012 8:35:01 AM

The author is trying too hard.

This article implies that republicanism involves: - Replacement of the Queen as the Australian Head of State by a President. - Replacement of each of the 6 State Governors. - Dissolution of the States and Territories. - Dissolution of the 8 systems of Local Government (Plus a few others in Norfolk Island and the like). - Replacement of State, Territory and Local Government by "Regional Government", whatever that means. - a completely re-written Australian Constitution. - And more.

All that is needed is the first, and even that in two steps. The remainder is irrelevant to the primary objective, so why put at risk the very federation which makes Australia a single nation? There may be many who contemplate secession of Western Australia or the Principality of Lower Hutt or other bits and pieces, but would any of this improve the whole? There are many more Australians who, with determination and passion, would prefer to keep Australia whole.

Progress has been made: The Constitution is now able to be amended by Australians without requiring enabling laws to be passed in Britain. The Governor-General is no longer expected to be a Britisher - he or she is now always an Australian.

The first step is to agree a method of democratic appointment or election of the GG, instead of appointment by the Queen on the "advice" (Here, read "direction") of the Prime Minister, accompanied by or very soon followed by removal of appeals beyond the GG to the Queen. The Governor General need not have any other title, such as President. That is a red rag to those who resist change of any type and implies too much in common with the French or with USA, where the President has far more power than contemporary Australia would entrust to its GG.

So, I suggest that only the above two steps take place - not the whole effort of tearing down Australia's systems of government and starting anew which are proposed by the author - that simply can't happen, now or ever.

Posted by JohnBennetts, Monday, 6 August 2012 8:47:49 AM

Everard is correct in wanting a republic . However , to link the campaign for a republic with abolition of the States will give monarchists a further argument for opposing it .

If Australia , federally , becomes a republic , the States will continue to have the British head of state as their " State " head of state . Over time , all States will legislate to end that anachronism .Some States will take longer than others . Generally , States do not need a referendum to amend their constitutions .

Probably , behind the scenes , if Australia federally becomes a republic , the Buckingham Palace administration and the British government will urge the State Premiers to legislate to end the State connection with Britain .

Posted by jaylex, Monday, 6 August 2012 9:27:17 AM

The author writes: "...we will cease to think parochially and nostalgically."

To establish a completely independent Australia is thinking parochially. Let us get past the idea of sovereign nation states. The European countries have created the European Union which is erasing some of the differences between the various European states. It lessens the chance of future wars.

Let's work for a union of democracies - unite with NZ, the US and any other democracy outside of the European Union. Eventually we could unite with the European Union and any country that is democratic.

A world government with the present authoritarian nature of many countries frightens me. A world government on a democratic basis is something I would welcome. Let's think beyond the chauvinistic idea of creating a new independent national entity.

Posted by david f, Monday, 6 August 2012 9:57:53 AM

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

What exactly is it about Australia's social and political system, apart from the "inevitability of change" which needs changing?